Mailbag for October 18, 2024
Mailbag for October 18, 2024
TV's Halloween UGH, when valid criticism becomes a pile on, celebs coming for our Substacks, interview sparks and thuds, security logistics, and partying with Beyoncé
Dear Squawkers,
Halloween is less than two weeks away and what that means for people who work in television is that, well, some of them have to look ridiculous and all of them have a lot more to do for… well… not much in return – but that’s my opinion.
On the ridiculous though, John Oliver did an “And Now This” on Last Week Tonight a few years ago about Halloween absurdity on local news. These are people sitting behind a news desk reporting on whatever fire or car accident happened at the factory or the freeway the night before while dressed as a giraffe. This is ludicrous, but maybe it’s just me because, as I always say (over and over again) this time of year, hating Halloween is my whole personality.
But I’m not here to bitch about Halloween today, I promise. I’m here to talk about The View’s decision to skip Halloween this year. For whatever reason, over the last 15 years or so, daytime television has gone nuclear at Halloween. Kelly Ripa was doing something like 50 costumes at one point. And while The View has never taken it to that level of excess, they’re known to go balls to the wall on Halloween, too.
This year, though, executive producer Brian Teta has confirmed that there will be no Halloween because, as he said on the Behind The Table podcast (via Vulture), “This year, because it’s only a few days before the election, and we need to be live, the hosts are not going to dress up for Halloween.” He elaborated that the Halloween episode every year is a “huge undertaking” and because they’re a huge undertaking, they are pre-taped. And right now, they feel like the show has to be live: “Part of what our show has become and what it is right now, we can’t be on tape three days before the election.”
I worked on a daily talk show, basically the Canadian descendent of The View, for ten straight seasons. Our Halloween episodes also became more and more elaborate over the years. We’re always live on Halloween, unlike The View, but we’re also very intentional about the topics for the show that day. Because, as noted above about the local news anchors being in costume, it wouldn’t have been appropriate to be to discussing serious topics, like racism and mental health and abuse of power, with scars and scabs all over our faces and puke stuck in our hair – which was me, in 2019, when I was Linda Blair in The Exorcist. (I do not believe in pretty/sexy Halloween; if I have to do Halloween for work, it either has to be funny or gross.)
This is one of The View’s considerations right now. You can’t have Whoopi out here doing Beetlejuice while talking about Donald Trump and JD Vance accusing Haitians of eating pets and how they’re coming for women’s reproductive rights. But there’s also, as Brian Teta said, “the huge undertaking”. That’s why their Halloween episodes have to be pre-taped. The View airs at 11am ET live every day. This means the hosts have to be hair and makeup ready by at least 1030am ET. And if it’s a wild ass costume, the hair and makeup team would need at least two hours, conservatively. Considering how many hosts there are, they’d probably have to start at 6am ET (latest!) to get everyone processed, accounting for the content meetings that also have to happen when you’re doing a live talk show, and they have to decide on the topics for the day. On The Social we had a two-hour advantage since we went live at 1pm. But even then, those days were tighhhhht because we’d almost always pre-shoot a cold open at 10am or so, early enough to give our editors enough time to turn the piece around.
It's a fuck load of work for everyone, and more work for the producers, editors, and the glam squad than anyone else. Because the way it worked on our show (and I imagine it’s the same for any talk show), Halloween actually starts weeks in advance of actual Halloween. Once the theme has been decided, the producers then have to start figuring out what the set will look like, and the hair and makeup team has to acquire the wigs and the plasters and the prosthetics and the clothing to make the costumes happen. I distinctly remember, last year, by the end of our shoot day on ETALK, our makeup artist, Shaby, looked, ironically, like a zombie. Shaby is actually the key artist for two shows (Canadian television budgets are a fraction of American budgets) so you can imagine how fried she was. And never, not once during that entire day, did she let it show. Because she’s a goddamn professional.
So my point is… when you’re watching broadcast television on Halloween, and you’re enjoying the show, think of the people off-camera who made it possible. Our business wouldn’t function without them.
And one final thought because I can’t fucking help myself – is there really that much of a payoff to Halloween on TV? I’ve never been convinced that viewers say to themselves, “I can’t wait to watch XYZ Daytime Show, the Halloween episode is going to be incredible!” Maybe it’s just me. Maybe my anti-Halloween energy only attracts confirmation bias.
And now…Mailbag!
Question from Kate:
This isn’t a question for/criticism of Simu but a comment from someone here re the Blake IEWU backlash made me think. What is the line where valid criticism becomes a pile on and does that become bullying? Or maybe it’s the in person versus internet aspect of things. It feels like less of a pile on when you are discussing things in person maybe, versus when your IG comments or FB wall is filled with people slamming you.
Yes, and his later thoughts on it all were really well spoken, too. I also think it’s so rare to see celebs see people witch hunting on their behalf or as a result of something they’ve said and try to deal with it. See criticism of Taylor Swift and many other pop girlies not telling their fans to lay off the doxxing and harassment.
Lainey’s Answer:
I think what you’re saying is that thousands of people dragging you online can feel like an overwhelming attack because of how it’s served to you on social media. There’s also the fact that hurtful comments make more of an impact. Even when you’re not being called out, on a regular day, if there are 99 comments of love, that one comment from a troll who says you’re worthless and stupid stands out way more and is the one you remember. Why are our brains wired this way? And it was like this before social media, too.
I don’t know where the line is, but I do think it goes back to the words you used in your question: “valid criticism”. Think about the time it took for all those people to leave those comments on Blake’s socials. A minute? That’s probably generous. I would estimate closer to ten seconds. Which, sorry, in my opinion doesn’t constitute “valid criticism”. If it was thousands of people leaving comments that were thoughtful, that were more than “you fucking suck”, or “fuck you and your florals, respect victims of intimate partner violence!”, if there were at least three or four lines explaining what they found tone-deaf in Blake’s approach to the promotion, if they were more like the comments we have here at The Squawk (shameless Squawk pride!), would we say that’s a pile-on?
To your point about the pop girlies not calling off their fans – I don’t necessarily disagree with it. But I do think there is a line here, too. People who behave appallingly on social media, aka trolls, they feed off attention. For artists like Taylor and Beyoncé and Selena Gomez and BTS, 100% I understand why some people would like them to do more to denounce them. But that might also have the opposite effect. Because then they get what they want: they’re noticed by their idols, their behaviour caught the attention of their faves; and what if that ends up validating their fuckery and they do it even more?
I don’t have a lot of patience for the “plight” of superstars. But I definitely don’t envy the shit they have to balance, what they must tolerate at times because of their celebrity.
Question from Bentia:
A question based off of how Sarah has spoken about how celebrities entering the podcast space has sapped out a lot of the originality and the creative voices from that industry. They flattened it while taking away a lot of the capital that was going to the people who built it. They are now coming for the newsletter space, specifically Substack, is there a chance of the same thing happening here? I've seen writers complaining that this was where they went to critique celebrity and influencer culture positing that will become more difficult if those people gain a foothold here.
Sarah’s answer:
Are you referring to bestselling author James Patterson, whose net worth is estimated to be upwards of a billion dollars, joining Substack? I hope this isn’t a repeat of what’s happened to podcasting over the last 5-ish years. It does seem like any time normal people find a way to leverage a space for creative industry, celebrities and/or rich people move in and destroy it for the rest of us. It’s happened on YouTube, podcasting, OnlyFans, it’s happening to TikTok, and with people like James Patterson moving to Substack, it might happen here.
I certainly hope not. But it’s hard not to feel hunted, like the minute you find a way to carve out a tiny patch for yourself, here comes rich people to make it theirs, when they don’t even need it. I don’t know why James Patterson can’t just pick a media outlet he likes and invest in their existing business model. We’re not a traditional news model, so we’re not in direct competition with him, but I think of all the journalists who have migrated to Substack as legacy media has cratered, and I wonder what happens to them if their subscribers decide Patterson’s platform is a better investment than subscribing to several independent writers. And if his gambit pays off, what happens if like, PEOPLE decided to start a Substack? I literally can’t think about this without becoming depressed!
Question from Charlotte:
I'd love to hear about the interview questions you are most proud of (Celine!! Yeah!!). But also, do you have any interviews/interview questions that landed with a thud (dramatic or not), but you think it was your fault? (Not Jake G. obv. - we all agree that was his fault.) I'm thinking about a terrifying article by a woman who was supposed to interview Jennifer Grey and when JG told her not to ask about her nose, she DID IT ANYWAYS OMG! And lost the interview. And then a third part to this question is regarding Joaquin Phoenix and dumping the Todd Haynes film--Sarah was very in favour of JP being asked about that project, but how would that intersect with your job, Lainey? Obviously, he should be asked when he damages that many peoples' livelihoods for no shared reason, but is there anyone who actually can ask that question for us? It seems like it could ruin your footage to go there and that could mess up the work you and your team are doing.
Sarah’s answer:
I’m addressing the third part of Charlotte’s question: someone did ask Phoenix about dropping out of Todd Haynes’ film! It happened at the Venice Film Festival press conference for Joker 2, and Phoenix’s answer was basically “no comment”.
The question was posed by Screen Daily’s Ben Dalton, and hat’s off to him for asking. He’s the only person to challenge Phoenix on the record about bailing on Todd Haynes’ film and leaving hundreds of cast and crew in the lurch at the literal last minute. The Puck newsletter has reported that Haynes’ producers have “engaged litigators” to address the economic impact of Phoenix walking off the project. I’ve said from the beginning—he should pay everyone for their time, since he wasted it.
I don’t really do interviews, but sometimes I have a desire to do one (1) interview and go in with only one (1) question, knowing that bridge will burned when I’m done. Because that’s what this is really about—no one wants to burn bridges and risk access to talent for future projects. It’s the same reason no one challenges Brad Pitt about his many lawsuits, even when settlements are reported widely in traditional media. The Hollywood Reporter ran a feature about Pitt’s Make It Right mess in New Orleans last year, but that is a notable exception. It’s also notable they didn’t ask Pitt to his face about it. But still, reporting on the continued failure of Pitt’s charity to settle with residents left holding the bag when his “sustainable” houses ran into structural and mold issues is more than most entertainment outlets have done.
But it always comes back to that question of access. Ben Dalton must have been confident his publisher would back him should there be negative repercussions for daring to ask Phoenix a substantive question about the Haynes film. That, or he didn’t give a fuck about potentially alienating Phoenix, Phillips, and/or Warner Bros. Discovery. Again, all credit to him for asking. Even though Phoenix gave a bullshit answer, at least someone said it to his face. I wish more junketeers/entertainment reporters would follow suit, but I know the reality is they probably won’t, especially since now they know Phoenix won’t answer. The risk isn’t worth the reward. The next we hear about this will probably be through lawyers as they try to settle the issue of remuneration.
Lainey’s Answer:
Earlier this week I interviewed Jesse Eisenberg for A Real Pain. He wrote, directed, and stars in the film alongside Kieran Culkin. I LOVE this movie, so much. And I can’t wait for Sarah to see it because I want to know if she’ll feel the same way I do. It’s deeply empathetic, but also uncomfortable, but also really funny. Jesse wrote a great script, he cast exactly the right people, and their performances are outstanding across the board.
That said, I went into that interview with some hesitation because sometimes Jesse Eisenberg’s vibe can be… well… he has said himself that he’s an awkward person. There are examples all over the internet of some of his interviews that haven’t gone that well. This is not someone who’s comfortable in the spotlight, and is definitely not comfortable doing press.
So I had three goals for the interview: an answer from Jesse about his own film, an answer from Jesse about Kieran’s wonderful performance, and an answer about Emma Stone, who he’s known for almost 20 years and co-produced the film. Bonus: I wanted to talk to him about his feet because feet are a thing in the film. Joanna was the producer on this junket and we sat down twice beforehand to get the questions exactly right, order them in a way that we thought would be most effective. I was most worried about the Emma Stone question because while she’s involved in the film, she doesn’t appear in the film, so I was anxious about how he would take it since we were looking for a soundbite about their friendship. Credit to Joanna for coming up with the right wording:
“Emma Stone produced your first film and she co-produced this one. How has your friendship evolved from your Zombieland Days to now, with A Real Pain, where she’s supporting your work behind the scenes?”
It was a good question, he liked it, and he gave us a great answer about when they met, what she was like then, her ascent in Hollywood, how beloved she’s become, and how she has lent him some of that star power on his projects. I could see Joanna out of the corner of my eye when he was answering – big smile, eyes wide with excitement – her question landed beautifully and it’s exactly what she needs for when she cuts the story.
But, of course, sometimes it doesn’t go as planned. I can’t remember specific questions that have landed with a thud, but I can remember interviews that have been duds. We interviewed Nathan Fielder in 2014 and I know he, like Jesse, is awkward and his comedy comes from the unease he brings to every situation and, the way I see it, he uses that discomfort like an infection and spreads it around. Some people enjoy that style of conversation in an interview. I wasn’t into it because on that day it didn’t feel like we were sharing something, it felt mean, it felt like I was the experiment. Our questions were straight and earnest and they were coming back to us as mockery.
There was also the time I went into an interview with Jason Segel for This is 40 all pumped up because I thought he was going to be light and quippy so all my questions were designed for jokes and banter and he was tired and flat and clearly wasn’t feeling it and I couldn’t bring up his energy. You know how they sometimes say that funny people turn it on for the performance but in real life they’re dark and moody? That’s the impression Jason left on me.
Or maybe it’s the impression I left on him. Sometimes people just don’t vibe with each other and it’s actual chemistry, totally different wavelengths. It doesn’t feel great in the moment, but I try to approach it like athletes and a bad play or a bad point. You can’t dwell over a missed jump shot or a backhand that hits the net, or a drive that goes out of bounds. Athletes are trained to move past mistakes quickly and refocus on the next play. This too is a skill that I’m always working to improve.
Question from Rachel:
One that may be easily answered but when celebs go to public places but have their security entourage with them (I’m thinking of restaurants specifically) how does that work logistically? Like do they roam around the place? Do they book 2 tables? I’m assuming they don’t eat, but obviously the diners and the staff know ahead of time they are coming with 6 extra people or whatever.
Lainey’s Answer:
There are no generalities when it comes to celebrities and their security since they each have their own preferences. But I can tell you that 15 years ago, I was at a dinner party where Beyoncé, Mariah Carey, Gwen Stefani, and Jennifer Aniston showed up and I was able to observe how security worked on that one night.
It was 2009, the week of the Oscars. Cecconi’s was about to open in LA, and they hosted a pre-Oscar party. I was lucky enough to be invited as a guest of the sponsor, Grey Goose. Back in those days, before influencers were a thing, the studios/brands/establishments would invite a select few media people to come to their events. I know this sounds real fucking pretentious, but the parties were so much more special and exclusive in that era because we weren’t holding up iPhones in people’s faces at the time. We were still using Blackberries, LOL, and 2009/10 was probably the last year that Blackberry was actually competitive. So we were in an era where stars at the level of Beyoncé, Mimi, and Jennifer Aniston could attend a party like that and not have everyone in the room with their phones in their faces and Insta-Tweet-Toking.
The event started as a cocktail and then became a seated dinner. I was with one of my producers, and our table was perfectly positioned for us to see Beyoncé, Jennifer Aniston, and Gwen all seated at their own respective tables positioned in a triangle. Thank you for asking this question because looking back now? IT WAS WILD.
Beyoncé arrived after all the other celebrities. And Julius was with her. So to go back to your question, she was sat at her table with her guest (sorry, I don’t remember who she was with because there was too much stimulation!) in the middle of the room, the sun around whom we all orbit, and Julius posted up at a pillar a few feet away, where he remained the whole time, keeping an eye on her but also, I got the sense, making sure she wasn’t disturbed by a random. You know who did approach her? Mimi! Mimi sauntered over to B with her own small group of minders and Beyoncé gets up, and they greet each other, and this is happening in the middle of the fucking room while everyone tried not to look but of course we were all fucking gaping.
But even though it was Mimi, Julius was still on high alert – because this is his job, and he’s still doing it, to the point where we all know him by name. He moved closer, but not aggressively, making sure that Beyoncé could see him, and give him the signal or if she needed something. At the time, I confess, I thought it was extra. I was obviously ignorant then. I did not, then, appreciate Beyoncé’s significance. I did however appreciate in the moment that I was witnessing a brief diva summit, a one-of-a-kind experience, and know now how fortunate I was to be there.
Keep squawking and keep gossiping,
Lainey and Sarah
As to the substack thing, I am very picky about who I'm going to throw my money at, as I don't have that much money. I like bang for the buck, which means I'm more likely to throw my money at someplace like The Squawk or Jezebel or Pajiba or Wonkette, or individuals whose work and opinion I respect, like Kayleigh Donaldson, something like that. I think celebrities are boring, I am not a person who is star struck, so I don't really care what they think about anything as a general rule, unless they''re expressing something that offends me, and lord knows I'm not going to pay money for them to offend me.
I know I might be alone in all of that, but if there are substacks by celebrities where fans take over, it's not my problem, I'm never going to go there in the first place. Life is too short to waste it on things I don't enjoy.
Just a quick note that you can add "audiobooks" to the artistic worlds celebrities are starting to overload. Lots of journeyperson (and amazing) narrators are increasingly struggling to find work as celebrities and AI crowd out the top and bottom of the industry.